• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CNN TV: Next Supreme Court Pick

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: techs
The precedent set by Roberts comes home to roost. By allowing Roberts to decide what questions he would and would not answer, we now have a Supreme Court candidate with no record who will tell us only what she wants.
And it is likely the Republicans will demand her confirmation anyway.
Isn't it screwey to appoint someone for life based on no record?
Click to expand...

That wasn't set by Roberts.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: conjur
And look who has donated to DeLay's Legal Expense Fund (Locke, Liddell & Sapp):

http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/delay.asp
Click to expand...

Does Ms. Miers even have any role in the firm anymore? She has apparently not worked there in several years.
Click to expand...
"*Based on reports filed with the House Legislative Resource Center covering the period 7/1/00 to 12/31/01."

She worked there until she was selected to be Staff Secretary in the White House.

Also, there's this:

Looks like Harriet's the one who recommended "Torture" Gonzales
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=archives&month=2&year=2005
Alberto Gonzales was recommended to Bush as counsel in the Texas Governorship by Harriet Miers, who has replaced Gonzales as White House counsel. Referred to by Bush as a "pit bull in size 6 shoes'', Miers is a former President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell and former chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission. Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell have given at least $65,000 to Bush campaigns and are major backers of tort reform. One case involved a unique law - passed under former Gov. George Bush - that blocked Texas consumers from recovering $6 billion in overcharges on car loans and allowed dealers to keep kickbacks secret. Two consumer groups have called on the Texas Legislature to repeal it. Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell were defendants of the litigation, which included auto dealers in Texas . Miers was also Chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission and responsible for a chain of events involving GTech, which ran the Texas Lottery, former Lt. Governor Ben Barnes, and accusations of kick-backs and illegal contracts. Yes, that Ben Barnes, who says he helped George Bush get into the National Guard. His original deposition on that subject was given in 1999, during this Texas Lottery Commission investigation, and has been permanently sealed.
Click to expand...


Harriett Miers was the one to scrub Shrub's National Guard record?
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=171

And this:

http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=231
Miers is a Dallas-based lawyer and chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission. The former president of the State Bar of Texas and Dallas City Council member has done legal work for Bush and his political committee. As chair of the lottery commission, Miers came under fire when former commission executive director Lawrence Littwin sued the state's lottery operator, GTECH, for allegedly pressuring Miers to fire Littwin. Littwin and his attorneys have suggested throughout the proceedings that GTECH was allowed to keep its state lottery contract in exchange for former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes' silence. Barnes, a former GTECH lobbyist, stated under oath that he helped George W. Bush enlist in the Texas Air National Guard as an alternative to going to Vietnam 31 years ago.
Click to expand...


Yeah...this isn't an example of cronyism. Not at all.
 
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: techs
The precedent set by Roberts comes home to roost. By allowing Roberts to decide what questions he would and would not answer, we now have a Supremem Court candidate with no record who will tell us only what she wants.
And it is likely the Republicans will demand her confirmation anyway.
Isn't it screwey to appoint someone for life based on no record?
Click to expand...


I am a liberal, but thought Justice Roberts was perfectly appropriate in the confirmation hearings. I guess it's because I'm a lawyer, but it makes perfect sense to me that a nominee would refuse to prejudge cases during the confirmation process. It's frankly not appropriate, IMO, for a judge to start announcing how he would decide cases when he has no real-world facts or procedural history to rely on.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about that. However, I think its perfectly valid to ask a nominees opinion and thinking of past SC decisions.
While Roberts did not start the policy of deciding which questions to answer he did expand it to the point where there were few questions that could even be asked of him that would give us an idea of his thinking which he would answer.

 
Roberts is a bright man with a lot of experience... I don't really care for the partisan bulsh!t, so i don't have problems with it. Only fool would think that Bush would appoint anyone remotely liberal.

The second nomination is bit off the wall .... someone that has no judiciary experience probably shouldn't be in supreme court...
 
By not selecting a active justice, there is no track record to complain/tear apart.

Reduces the partisan target area.

The Dems can not scream minority; therefore the area is again made smaller.
 
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: EagleKeeperThe Dems can not scream minority; therefore the area is again made smaller.
Click to expand...

They only need to scream, "unqualified!".
Click to expand...

Most of the Dems pols may be unqualified also; but their constituents keep electing them because of loyalty and bringing home the pork.

Where are the qualifications spelled out for a judge?

 
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: EagleKeeperThe Dems can not scream minority; therefore the area is again made smaller.
Click to expand...

They only need to scream, "unqualified!".
Click to expand...

I think this is one nomination in which her qualifications are, in all fairness, open to some doubt. I don't see how any sane person without a strong bias could seriously have questioned John Roberts' qualifications, but Ms. Miers is more of an open question. I guess we'll see.
 
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: EagleKeeperThe Dems can not scream minority; therefore the area is again made smaller.
Click to expand...

They only need to scream, "unqualified!".
Click to expand...
Most of the Dems pols may be unqualified also; but their constituents keep electing them because of loyalty and bringing home the pork.

Where are the qualifications spelled out for a Supreme Court judge?
Click to expand...
Added in the proper qualifier (since we are talking of qualifications).

And, what would be a qualification for a Supreme Court Judge nominee?

Oh, I dunno...maybe having actually been a judge instead of a personal lawyer to the president (back when he was governor)? That would be a start.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: EagleKeeperThe Dems can not scream minority; therefore the area is again made smaller.
Click to expand...

They only need to scream, "unqualified!".
Click to expand...
Most of the Dems pols may be unqualified also; but their constituents keep electing them because of loyalty and bringing home the pork.

Where are the qualifications spelled out for a Supreme Court judge?
Click to expand...
Added in the proper qualifier (since we are talking of qualifications).

And, what would be a qualification for a Supreme Court Judge nominee?

Oh, I dunno...maybe having actually been a judge instead of a personal lawyer to the president (back when he was governor)? That would be a start.
Click to expand...


She just does not seem qualified to be a judge on the highest court in the land.

Bush doesn't even try to look outside his inner circus...oops i mean circle.
 
i have no problem with this pick, i was actually expecting someone even worse..... maybe that's why.

hell, many great judges in the past have no judicial experiences.... i wonder if she's pro choice....
 
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: conjur
Added in the proper qualifier (since we are talking of qualifications).

And, what would be a qualification for a Supreme Court Judge nominee?

Oh, I dunno...maybe having actually been a judge instead of a personal lawyer to the president (back when he was governor)? That would be a start.
Click to expand...
She just does not seem qualified to be a judge on the highest court in the land.

Bush doesn't even try to look outside his inner circus...oops i mean circle.
Click to expand...
I think it goes to the President's mental malady, whatever it is. There's certainly something wrong with the man. He cannot be around people that aren't beyond loyal to him. He's really not far off from the mindset that Saddam had when he ruled. No bad news was to be brought to him. Hell, didn't Salazar just call Bush a "king"?
 
Like I've said before, this generation deserves to suffer for allowing Bush to be elected.

It's just so unfortunate that future generations who had no say will have to suffer as well.

🙁
 
Originally posted by: Pepsei
i have no problem with this pick, i was actually expecting someone even worse..... maybe that's why.

hell, many great judges in the past have no judicial experiences.... i wonder if she's pro choice....
Click to expand...

We'll see, but I find it unlikely that Bush would dissapoint his party by nominating someone that is pro-choice.
 
Originally posted by: tss4
Originally posted by: Pepsei
i have no problem with this pick, i was actually expecting someone even worse..... maybe that's why.

hell, many great judges in the past have no judicial experiences.... i wonder if she's pro choice....
Click to expand...

We'll see, but I find it unlikely that Bush would dissapoint his party by nominating someone that is pro-choice.
Click to expand...

You never know though. But I have a feeling that was the clincher for not nominating Gonzales.

Either way, this is no surprise. It was either going to be a minority, a woman or both.
 
This drives me up a wall. You know she's going to slide her way through the Senate due to the 100% partisanship going on in there these days. I agree, Roberts wasn't a bad choice at all. This lady, however, is just going to be a way for Bush to exert his "legacy" many years following his presidency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top